• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reflections on invicible ignorance

David Wong said:
So am I right in saying that all of the normal people have now been filtered out of the CT movement? And all that's left are the teenagers and lifelong paranoid types?

When I say the condition of this forum has gone downhill I'm not speaking a word against the site or the regulars who post here, but rather the quality of the opposition. There used to be some pretty earnest (if uninformed) people who used to wander in in enough numbers to make one believe there were lots of those people in the movement. Now, they seem to steer clear once they realize who they're associating with.
Click to expand...

Seconded.

Ive been lurking for months, and I've yet to meet anyone close to "rational" from the CT camp.
 
gumboot said:
Morph is by far the most hostile CTer I have seen on this site.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

We will meet more of this type of CT´ists because they
start to get angry about the stagnancy of the troofment.
 
Morphology said:
So am I right in saying that all of the normal people have now been filtered out of the CT movement?"

Now here's an imbecile fer shure...

"They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense of the word; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal society. Their perfect adjustment to that abnormal society is a measure of their mental sickness. These millions of abnormally normal people, living without fuss in a society to which, if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted, still cherish "the illusion of individuality," but in fact they have been to a great extent deindividualized. Their conformity is developing into something like uniformity. But "uniformity and freedom are incompatible. Uniformity and mental health are incompatible too. . . . Man is not made to be an automaton, and if he becomes one, the basis for mental health is destroyed."

- Huxley
Click to expand...


Here's another interesting paradigm : CTers ALWAYS view the human popula as dumb, abnormal, non cognizant, unthinking, DRONElike.

What a terrible way to think. to put Humanity in such a maleovolent universe premise >_>-p
 
Here's another interesting paradigm : CTers ALWAYS view the human popula as dumb, abnormal, non cognizant, unthinking, DRONElike.

Wrong again, soldier. I view humans as generally bright, neither good nor evil, structured by their environment but retaining the will to choose.

Hell, a sure tribute to common sense is the latest poll on 911: only an idiotic 14 percent buy the official story. That includes you maniacs ;)
 
Morphology said:
"Sorry, but is your "pop psych" module calibrated to the wrong century?"

I find the original behaviorist experiments fascinating. And disturbing.
Click to expand...
The "pop psych" comment was directed at your Freudian allusion. I am a behaviorist; there is a reason the original (methodological behaviorist) experiments have been superceded. Like Freud, they are still fascinating metaphors, but not great science. They are pop psych and nothing more. You need updating.
I never claimed that the results were transferable to humans, except under certain circumstances (eg on this forum) Disturbingly, most scientists at the time thought otherwise. More disturbing still, some scientists continue to regard the world as a one giant "experiment". (see "world as laboratory")
Click to expand...
As I said, I am a behaviorist, and have taught courses in the history of psychology. What you are doing is more prevalent in High School English classes. If you really respected the early behaviorists, you would do them the honor of not extrapolating so far from your data.
The simple fact is that “ruling elites” in the 20th C have been obsessed with social control; therefore, the initial rat experiments are instructive, if only as a metaphor.
Click to expand...
There is very little "if" about it. You have taken a metaphor and run with it. Current rat experiments are still instructive, BTW, and as more than metaphor. The science has progressed tremendously since the experiments you are so fond of. I can only hope, as I said before, that your knowlege of other things is more up to date.
 
Morphology said:
Here's another interesting paradigm : CTers ALWAYS view the human popula as dumb, abnormal, non cognizant, unthinking, DRONElike.

Wrong again, soldier. I view humans as generally bright, neither good nor evil, structured by their environment but retaining the will to choose.

Hell, a sure tribute to common sense is the latest poll on 911: only an idiotic 14 percent buy the official story. That includes you maniacs ;)
Click to expand...

Right, so where did you say is your evidence that Böhringer
was arrested and a CIA guy?
 
Morphology said:
Here's another interesting paradigm : CTers ALWAYS view the human popula as dumb, abnormal, non cognizant, unthinking, DRONElike.

Wrong again, soldier. I view humans as generally bright, neither good nor evil, structured by their environment but retaining the will to choose.

Hell, a sure tribute to common sense is the latest poll on 911: only an idiotic 14 percent buy the official story. That includes you maniacs ;)
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken, that pole does not suggest that people think 9/11 was an inside job. Its the CTs that interpret it that way.
 
I like the way Morph thanks us for not banning him, then goes back to insulting us. I hope the drugs wear off soon.
 
If you really respected the early behaviorists, you would do them the honor of not extrapolating so far from your data.”


I DON’T respect the early behaviorists, but I find their experiments fascinating. Not because of their results, but because of the totalitarian psychology which drove them. Behaviorists, for all their good intentions (I’ve heard that before) turn out to be specialists in dehumanization and cruelty. I don’t care for their experiments at all. I think their experiments are at best half-baked and at worst un-scientific.

Have you read “World as Laboratory”? Check it out. If you’re interested in behaviorism you’ll love it.
 
Last edited:
I once saw a creation scientist speak. He was brilliant; he blended together biology, physics, cosmology, magnificently. He was dead wrong about each, mind you, but he was a practiced speaker, and had mastered the technique of "divide and conquer". Afterward, speaker after speaker got up and said "you are dead wrong about X, but I want to ask you about Y and Z"... His biology was wrong, but convinced physicists and cosmologists. His physics was wrong, but was close enough that it was accepted by biologists and cosmologists. And so on. I had carried in with me a book about this fellow; although several years old, it seems the man had not changed his speech one iota. Every single point he made had been refuted in previous speeches, and in this book, in depth. But damned if he wasn't a fabulous speaker. If you throw enough stuff out there, it will be impossible for your critics to stamp out every fire.

Anyway...the current troll is a half century out of date on his psychological jargon. What he has, rolls trippingly off his...er...keyboard. But it is tripe.

And with that, I am out of this thread. If anyone thinks "ah, he has a point about psychology here", feel free to PM me. But the divide and conquer strategy works too well; I'd rather not participate. My recommendation is to ignore any further forays into that area.

So far, I see no areas where I am thinking "perhaps he has a point here"... but if any lurker does, post it, and someone with expertise can evaluate it. Don't be misled by the shotgun approach.
 
I like the way Morph thanks us for not banning him, then goes back to insulting us"

I apologize. But you're a tough crowd.
 
Morphology said:
If you really respected the early behaviorists, you would do them the honor of not extrapolating so far from your data.”


I DON’T respect the early behaviorists, but I find their experiments fascinating. Not because of their results, but because of the totalitarian psychology which drove them. Behaviorists, for all their good intentions (I’ve heard that before) turn out to be specialists in dehumanization and cruelty. I don’t care for their experiments at all. I think their experiments are at best half-baked and at worst un-scientific.

Have you read “World as Laboratory”? Check it out. If you’re interested in behaviorism you’ll love it.
Click to expand...
One last comment.

********.

"Case studies in the great power of steady misrepresentation" Todd & Morris, 1992.
 
Don't be misled by the shotgun approach"

That wasn't my intent. That's my honest opinion about behaviorism. Anyway, check out that book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom